A Battell with a VVaspes Nest; OR, A REPLY to an Angry and Railing PAMPHLET, WRITTEN By Master JOSEPH HEMING, CALLED JVDAS EXCOMMVNICATED, OR, A Vindication of the Communion of Saints, &c.

Wherein his Arguments are Answered, his Abuses whipt and stript: The Question whether Iudas received the Sacrament Debated, and the Affirmative proved.

By Peter Lightfoot.

LONDON, Printed in the Yeare, 1649.

To the READER.

IN a Pamphlet lately published by Mr Ioseph He­ming, [which he hath titled JUDAS EXCOMMU­NICATED, or, A vindication of the Communion of Saints &c.] there is so much dirt and venome vomited by him, upon my name and repute, that by his casting, you may easily guesse the fulnesse of his stomack; and get out of his way Reader; for he cares not where he lets flie, if the disgorging fit do but once come upon him, which comes not seldom: He made this promise in an Epistle which he intended to prefix unto this clamorous Volumn, but spared it, upon curtesie to me, as he pretendeth, I am resolved now God willing, if he retract not what he hath spoken, and that speedily, to give his Reputation such a wound, that all godly men, who love the truth, and speak the truth in sincerity, abominating lies, and such as speak them in hypocrisie; yea, those very ungodly ones whose cause he pleads shall loath it, as men do a rotton stinking Carkasse, by the wayes side: Neither shall all the freinds he hath, or can possibly make, be ever able to salve it up. A very charitable and Saint like resolution I can assure you; and how he hath endeavoured to make his word good, by bad words, all along his Libell, I need not to goe about to shew, the thing it self speaks it selfe: You see the mans spirit and temper by his own Confes­sion: He pretends to Argue and Reason, but intends to barke and bite; he takes on him tendernesse to the truth, which it seemes, if he stood not up for it, were utterly undone, whereas the bottome of his heart and resolution is, to fall upon my person and wound my repute, and to serve his spleen up­on me, under such a pretence. A man that begins to assume a Papall Prerogative, and in time may prove as excellent a [Page]Saint-maker, or Devill-maker, as his Pontificall Holinesse of Rome himselfe: For please him, be his white boyes, and doe as he does, and say as he sayes, you shall presently be a Saint, and not an Egyptian dog must dare to open his mouth against it. But, do but crosse him never so little in his Opi­nion, or in his humour, and he will instantly make you a pro­phane person, and a cast-away, and all the friends you have can doe you no good.

The occasion of all this his heat and breaking out against me, was onely this, He oftentimes in the Pulpit [though I must tell you that I believe he is no more a lawfull Minister then my selfe] declaimed against the Sacrament calling it a Communion of dogs and Devils, and a rotten two peny Communion, [so he calls the Lords prayer a carnall fleshly Ordinance] bragging to prove against all men That Iudas did not receive the Sacrament, and telling the Congregation, That if they did believe that Iudas did receive the Sacrament, they might doe as Judas did, that is, goe and receive, and then goe and hang them­selves &c. You cannot blame me, if such passages as these seemed bitter to me, who as yet cannot be convinced by all that ever he hath spoken about it, but that Iudas did receive the Sacrament as well as any other of the Disciples. Here­upon I drew up short Notes upon this point, for mine own set­tlement, and for some others satisfaction: Which Notes I did neither send to him, nor intend for him; but he getting them into his hands by some meanes or other, and disdaining that his Oracularity, and ipse dixit should be crost, he fals to Shimei's manner of Dispute with railing and flinging dirt and stones, as a man transported with fury, passion, and scorn to be contradicted.

I am not solitious to stand upon the Vindication of mine own repute, which to wound, he hath by his own confession, set himselfe to work, and made it his task: [if this be to be a servant to all men in the Gospel of Iesus Christ, as hee stileth [Page]himself to be, he that carries Δ [...] An Accuser in his name may do as much.] I referre my cause to God, who knoweth my heart and actions, and who will once judge between us: and besides the witnesse of mine own conscience, I dare appeal to all that know me, to give in testimony of my conversation: And to those that know me not, I do but refer it, to weigh with what scorn, spleen, pride, and virulency Mr Heming hath spoken against me what he hath spoken, and then let them judge whether so high boyling passions be not ready to foam out scum and scandall.

Whosoever hath bestowed the time and paines to read his Discourse through, he doth easily perceive it to consist of these four parts, Reasoning, Railing, Boasting, and Impertinencies: The three last are his own proper invention, and let him have the honour of them: but the first, that is, Reasoning, or Ar­guments, or Answers, or call them what you will, about the matter in dispute between us, there is hardly one of them, but he hath shamelessely stollen it; Come hither all yee Prose­lytes and Disciples of Mr Heming, and see how he useth you: He makes you believe that this his great elaborate volumn is his own study, and paines, and Learning; and I hope you do not a little admire him for it; he feeds you with these Argu­ments to prove that Iudas received not the Sacament, as if they were out of his own store; whereas, they are almost eve­ry bit of them stollen goods, and you poor souls are fed with such plundred provision; I suppose you will not take it well at his hands to be so served as he hath served you, when I tell you whence he had it: You would little think that Mr Heming should feed you with the invention of a Iure-Di­vino-Presbyterian Scot, and make you beleeve it is the dainty food of his own providing: Spit out for shame; for these Arguments, that you have so eagerly swallowed, digested and been delighted with, came out of a Iure-Divino-Presbyterian Cup-boord, were cookt and disht up by a Iure-Divino-Presbyterian [Page]hand, and Mr Heming got them away by the vir­tue of Hocas Pocas, and hath served them up for your diet, as his own Cookery: Read but Mr Gillespy in his Book called Aarons rod blossoming, from pag. 442 to pag. 469 and there you will see how this Gentleman ruffles in cloathes that are none of his own, and makes you believe that he feeds you with Venison, when it is but kids flesh purloined, and that from a Scot. Now fie upon that ever Mr Heming should serve us thus.

The two sentences of Greek with which he hath flourished the front of his Volumn, he hath taken out of that Book, pag. 452. and 453. word for word. The second thing in his ninth page, the third thing in his tenth page, the first, second, third and fourth things in his eleveth page, the third thing in his thirteenth page beginning thus, The Originall &c. And the first in the same page, beginning with Perhaps &c. In the fifteenth page, the first Answer beginning Tis true &c. the se­cond beginning Tis as true &c. and the second below begin­ning If it had been said &c. The third beginning, Whereas hee affirmeth &c. And from thence all whole till you come to the first thing in the sixteenth page: The fourth thing in the six­teenth page, and the first thing in the last page: These are all taken out of that Book of Mr Gillespies, as any one may see that will read that portion of it between those pages. 442, and 469. Read it ye Saints, in and about Vttoxater, and see how your great Oracle serves you, and trust him another time. It is his own motion in his Epistle to you, page 4. Let me see my Errata's and I shall endeavour to correct and amend them: Shew him this his dealing, and tell him it is not fair to serve either you or Mr Gillespy thus. For all the little affection that he beareth either to a Scot, or the Presbyterian judgement, and for all the great sincerity that he pretends to bear to you, yet you see how he can make use of those; and make bold with you to serve his own turn.

It is certainly either a great itch that he hath to appear in publick, or a great desire to scratch a Publick revenge out of me that hath put him on to play such poore game as this, ra­ther then to sit out, namely that he will dish up other mens arguments sippeted with his own boasting and railing, rather then not to be seen a man in Print [and so he must needs Print; and he must needs print Queries about Christmas day that he might be some body, though the most part of them were fiilched out of Mr. Prynns Histriomastix and the Scripture Almanack] but if there be such an itch in him, I would he would claw himself, and not make other men smart for his scrubbing: It is not any smart in my reputation that troubles me though he thought to have lashed that to the fleying and salting [I have innocency is vipers proof] but it is a smart to me that I must be troubled to spend time and labour in answer­ing stollen arguments, idle vapours, snarlings and barkings, and fond impertinencies of a man that cares not much what he sayes, so it be in Print, that it may be talked of, and whose very element is mud and troubled waters. Were I such an one for senselesnesse and for impiety as he would make me, I I were fitter to live among brute beasts then amongst men, or rather I were not fit to live upon the earth at all. But my wit­nesse is in heaven, and within me, what is my heart; and my testimony is in the Country where I have lived, where is and hath been my conversation; and let the few lines ensuing be the evidence whether I am mad and raging as he would repre­sent me. I see if Master Heming were the doomer of my finall estate that it would go but hardly with me, but I am to stand or fall to mine own master, into whose hands let me fall, for with him is mercy. However, I am traduced by the most uncharitable censure of this man, to have contra. conscientiously upon a malignant designe and for the ad­vancement of my masters kingdom [you can easily read what ma­ster his charity meaneth] taken up and maintained that opini­on [Page]that I hold: yet the Lord God of Gods he knoweth and I desire that Israel may know, that never any such thing entred or got the least footing in my thoughts: but what I hold and maintain, I do it according to the best light I can receive from Scripture, according to the best dictates of my conscience up­on that information, & as in the sight of God, & as in dread and reverence of his divine word. Therfore it doth fret me as little as it doth please him much in all the reproaches he doth cast upon me: and if he can count it the part of a Saint to use such language, I can very well account it the part of a Christian to undergo it. And I go not alone neither under that burden; for all that are not directly of his mind and practise, have share in the same reviling and censure with me.

I shall for all his scornes, calumnies, uncharitablenesse, and virulency, leave him these places for an answer, Prov. 30.12.13.14. Mat. 5.22. and 7.1. Luk. 18.9. Ephes. 4.31. &c. And as for the cause that is between us, I shall most heartily lay the umpirage of it before any impartiall and indifferent rea­ders, when they shall have had the patience to hear what I can say for the things I hold, as they have seen what he hath spo­ken for himself.

Vttoxeter. August 14. 1649.
Peter Lightfoot.

A Battell with a VVaspes Nest; OR, A REPLY to an Angry and Railing Pamphlet Written by Mr Ioseph Heming, called JUDAS EXCOMMUNICATED or, A Vindication of the Communion of Saints, &c.
His Epistle dedicated to the Saints of the most High God in and about Vttoxater, he beginneth thus,

Precious Hearts,

I Confesse, I am engaged in low and fruitlesse Controversies, against which I finde a reluctancy in my spirit, be­cause they tend not to edification so much as could be wished.

Answer. I would gladly know, what necessity hath engaged him in such Controversies: I am sure it is as free and more ne­cessary for him, to teach the sound and saving doctrines of salvation (if he had a calling thereto and were able) and would be more acceptable and profitable to those that heare them, then to trouble mens minds with empty and windy Controversies, which only swell and puffe up, but edifie not. I am past doubting, and I dare say that all men that do seriously mind salvation will be of the same mind with me, that teach­ing the Doctrines of Faith, repentance, self-deniall, charity, mortifica­tion, and the like, is a thousand t [...]mes a readier way, either to beget a Saint, or to build him up, then puzzling mens thoughts with low Disputes and fruitlesse Controversies, in which Mr Heming spends so much time and is so deeply engaged. I dare say those points never brought men to heaven. I question whether ever they forwarded any men so much as one step thitherward: Admit I were come up [Page 2]to Mr Hemings opinion in these points as far as he would have me, that I would speak as bitterly against Iudas his receiving of the Sacra­ment and mixt Communion as he doth, that I abhorred baptizing of Infants, that I would be re-baptized, that I would cry out against singing of Psalms in the publick Congregation, that I would hold or practise in these or such like things as these as punctually and completely a [...] hee could desire; I pray you what were I nearer heaven for all this? what one haires breath had this stept me forward towards God or towards salvation? Might not Publicans, Harlots, Ahabs, Cains, and incarnate Devils do as much as all this, and be Devils still? Why should Mr. Heming engage himself and insist so much upon such fruit­lesse things as these, as he hath done, when it is as free and as open before him to deal onely with sound and saving doctrines? and it would be more comfortable for him so to do, upon his finall account, and it would be more gracefull to the hearers, in case Mr Heming were able or idoneous thereunto.

I will appeal to all standers by, of unbiassed and impartiall judge­ment; yea, I durst appeal to Mr Hemings own conscience if unmuffled or not altogether ignorant, whether the insisting upon such doctrines as these, upon which he spends the most of his publike discourses a­mong us, tends not more to gaine a party, then to save a soul. I would ask of him, what comfortable account doth he think to give, when he comes to give up his reckoning betwixt God and himself? first, for taking upon him the profession of a Minister, and then for neglecting to prosecute the wholsome doctrines that should save soules so much as he doth, and declaming almost only upon such windy and needlesse points as these, which only breed ill humors, and disturbance in the minds of men, and divisions and heart-burnings in Congregations, and tend not one jot or tittle to edification: And I would desire the Saints in and about Ʋttoxater, that he meaneth, in the bowels of Christ and in the melting tendering of their own salvation, to think seriously with themselves upon their reckoning with God, upon these points: whe­ther they think the zeal against, Infants baptism, mixt Communion, and such like punctilio's, the best upon which must needs coole zeal in better things, can redound to their comfort, in the day of their ac­count? Let me by way of parable lay before them two men upon their death-beds, and reckoning with God upon their course and carriage in Religion: One of them of the old light as it is reputed, that is in the old and good way in Religion, in which all the holy men in England have walked since England knew the Gospel: He hath this to say, from the [Page 3]bottom of his heart to God; Lord, then knowest, that I have ever desired to lie low in mine own thoughts, and have reputed my self the chiefest of sinners, that I have loved and longed after the sincere doctrines of salvation, that tended to the saving of my soule, and to the union in thy Church, that I have prayed, heard, sung, received the Sacrament with the Congregation with a good heart: And that thy Word hath been most welcome to me, though it hath crossed me in my dearest humour and opinion. The other of them, of the New Light, and strange doctrines that are now afoot, that were never heard of before, He hath this to say upon his reckoning for his comfort; Lord, thou knowest that I have accounted my selfe a Saint and despised others, that I have loved and been zealous for matters of question and dispute, that I have refrained the Sacrament, and singing of Psalms with the Congregation, because of the prophane in it; I have been an enemy to Infants baptism, and I have not cared for any Minister, that was not directly of mine opinion and judgement: let any one judge whether of these two is liker to come off with the greater comfort; and let any that know the way of Mr Hemings teaching, judge, whe­ther the greatest bent of his endeavour in it, do tend to any higher comfort then the latter. Reader, however he talks of reluctancy in his spirit against such low Controversies, it is his own free choyce, and for ought we can see, his delight to be versed and zealous in them, and there is no necessity or force upon him to urge him to it, that any of us can possibly conceive, unlesse it be because he is not skilled in more materiall points, or because he would make and maintaine a party. And that he delights in these low Controversies, for all his saying, it is enough to be collected out of his own words, who though he call them fruitlesse, yet within five lines after, he professeth that he findeth daily that low things are most beneficiall for believers of lowest attainments; God help those Believers that find no greater benefit by any doctrine then by these low points. I can hardly beleeve that such are Believers of S. Peters old edition, that desire the sincere milk of the Word and grow by it, but of the new edition under some New Light, that think to go to heaven somenew-found way. Then he proceedeth thus,

What I have done in this is for their souls, who came out of Babylon, out of Aegypt the other day.

Answer. Let Mr Heming remember that passage, Wo unto him that calleth light darknesse; what he meaneth by Babylon and Egypt, is easie to pick out, namely, whosoever is not of his opinion and practise: [Page 4]And hence come those charitable and innocent expressions of his [as he cals them] Mr Lightfoot and his unholy Communicants, pag. 4. Mr Light­foot and his unholy crew, pag. 20. His prophane fellow-members. p. 5. &c.

The Reader, if he were of Mr Heming's charity and no higher, might be induced to think that poor Ʋttoxater is the veriest Sodom and Gomorrha upon the earth, and that till he came thither, it had bin led and lived in the deepest Superstition and darknesse that ever Babylon and Egypt did: It is not for me to speak, what a Ministery this Town hath had, ever since before Mr Heming was born [the relation I stand in to him that hath been their Minister so long, does stop my mouth:] But let all the Counteys hereabout, Cheshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Darbishire &c. let any in England that ever heard of old Mr Lightfoot Minister of Ʋttoxater, and what he hath been, and what his Mini­stery and Conversation hath been, nay let Mr Hemings own Saints, be witnesses what his pains, doctrine, life, and Ministery hath been among them for above this thirty years: If they have not dissembled, the day hath been when some of them have acknowledged, and taken on them to think, that this Town in a happy Ministery hath gone in equall pace and degree with the most Townes of England. And now the case is so altered, that till Mr Heming came amongst them, poor Vitoxa­ter is said to have been in darknesse, and in Babylon and Egypt; and he proved a Moses and a Zorebabel to bring it out.

I would argue with Mr Heming about these precious hearts that are come out of Babylon and Egypt but the other day: Some of them have pretented to holinesse and precisnesse in Religion above other men, many years before Mr Heming ever came here, or his name was known; and it may be they were then more really taken for Saints then they are now: They were either Saints then, or they were not; If they were not, then they were hypocrites, for they took religiousnesse and sanctity upon them: If they were Saints, then there may be Saints in Babylon and Egypt, and in my Communion: And I hope these ancient Professors have not changed their charity though they have changed their light, so, but that they think there are some that communicate with me, that have alwayes demeaned themselves in the evidence and demonstration of holinesse, zeal, piety, charity, and of all other Chri­stian accomplishments, in as full and constant a measure and course, as any of those that Mr Heming hath brought out of Egypt and Babylon, and that have ever carryed as visible works of Saints upon them, as any of these: But would you know what it is to come out of Babylon and Egypt in Mr Hemings sence? It is indeed to come out of your wits and [Page 4]your Religion, it is to deny your Baptisme, your mother Church of England, and the way of Religion in which all the holy men of Eng­land have walked till now. It is to cast off Parliament, Assembly, Directory, order and all Government in matters of Religion. It is to withdraw from the Communion, refrain from singing of Psalmes, vilifie the Lords Prayer, and Infants Baptisme. It is in a word, to walk by a new light, newly lighted, and newly come forth; to say and do as Mr Heming would have you, and he that doth these things, is as surely come out of Aegypt, as ever did Gypsies, and is as certain­ly a Saint as it is certain the moon is made of green cheese.

Mr. Heming. I never intended this answer of mine should have come to a publick censure, had not Mr Lightfoot and his unholy Communi­cants, &c. dealt deceitfully.

Answer. The Frier desired a Pigs heart, and a Capons liver, but good man he would have neither Pig nor Capon die for him. Mr Heming loves in his heart to be in Print, for that makes him seem some body, but he would not come to publick censure, for that may hap to speak contrary to his self-conceit and humour, and that is to him as the pangs of death. I will not question whether he intended his answer for the Presse or no, it may be it had been as good for him to have let it alone; but let me thank him for publishing his good word, which I and my fellow Communicants have from him all along. Mr. Light­foot and his unholy Communicants dealt deceitfully: Nay, if I take you talking of dealing deceitfully, Ile talk with you, for I have my tale to tell to that purpose too. You may observe throughout his Pamphlet that still he holds it out as if I pleaded for mixt Communion, which I medled not withall, but onely kept me to the question, whether Judas received the Sacrament or no: but enter Matchiavell: His subtilty thought that he could not pick enough out of my assertion, That Iudas received the Sacrament, to make me so sufficiently odious as he would have me: therefore he juggles this businesse into the dis­pute about mixt Communion, and there he thought he should find railing stuffe enough against me, and how excellently he has husban­ded it is abundantly visible: To do him a courtesie, I will avouch for mixt Communion: and since he hath promised some elaborate piece in page 20, which will be about such a subject, I suppose I shall leave him a few quaeries to find him work.

  • 1. Whether may not a man with as much saftety to his soul receive the Sacrament with a scandalous person as with a hypocrite? Affirme
  • 2. Whether is not a man rather to communicate with scandalous, [Page 6]persons, if such company at the Sacrament cannot be avoided, then to refrain or withdraw from the Sacrament altogether? Affirme.
  • 3. Whether is there any such end, or any such thing in the nature of the Sacrament as to distinguish one Christian from another. Negat
  • 4. Whether the Communion of Saints in Scripture sense be not in the profession of the Christian faith, as well as in the receiving of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper? Affirme.
  • 5. Whether the main ends of the Sacraments of both Testaments be not the same? Affirme.
  • 6. Whether the Sacraments, howsoever they be received, be not Seales? Affirme.

This half dozen of points I would put out to Mr Heming to tagging; but let us have no boasting nor railing in the bargain: I would have my points tagged without tufts: If he can from clear Scripture or reason contradict what I hold, he will discover more skill, then he hath shew­ed himself guilty of in all this dispute: but if he cannot [but his Lo­gick can prove any thing] I could deduce such conclusions from these premises that would make his opinion against mixt Communion run so on snicksnarles, that with fingers and teeth and all he would find e­nough to do to unknot it again, and make it run glib.

The greatest part of his Epistle he spends in railing and reviling me, in as taunting and bitter termes as he can invent upon this score of mixt Communion, which though I medled not withall, yet he will needs perswade you that I hold it, or else he were undone for railing matter. Will you hear some of his innocent expressions, as he calls them? I should superabundantly wrong him If I should not rank him with the vilest in the Kingdome, for with them he will have Communion as a mem­ber of the same externall visible body, by vertue of which relation they are all his brethren and sisters; so that he hath his brother Drunkard, bro­ther Thi [...]f, brother Murderer, brother Liar, &c. Sister Whore, sister Witch, &c. Yea all that have been hanged at Tyburn and all other gal­lows in England ever since he was born and baptised into that fellowship he pleads for, have been his brethren and sisters, pag. 5. and 20. And this I dare say I can prove against all the Devills in hell. Pag. 5.

Angelus in penna—voce Gehenna. Nay take in Pede latro too, at Mr. Gillespies request who hath been so basely plundered.

Now a Kingdome for a mouse-hole to run into from the fury of this dreadfull Champion, that is ready to challenge even all, even all the Devils in hell into disputation. And certainly all the Devills in hell if they should dispute with him, could not give him worse lan­guage then he giveth me.

What 2 jolly kindred hath he adopted me into? It is well he lived not in the dayes of Samuell, or David or Esay, or Jeremy, or any of the holy men upon record in Scripture: for it is ods they might have heard as much from him, as I do, seeing they were admitted by the same Circumcision into the same Church, by which and into which every Israelite beside was admitted, were he good or bad: if it were any disgrace to them to have drunkards, murderers, liars, thieves, &c. circumcised as well as they, and of the same Church that they were of, I shall very willingly bear the same disgrace with them. Take heed Mr. Heming, that by your self united select Communion that you talk of, you make not your self holier then these holy men.

After he hath raged and rambled a great while in his puffe and pas­sion, he comes at the last a little to himself, and begins as he thinks to talk reason, and he faith thus,

Here is one thing that I would have you and all men to take speciall no­tice of, namely that Mr Lightfoots Communion diametrically opposeth

  • 1. The Soriptures, the plain letter. 1 Cor. 5.9, 10, 11. 2 Cor. 6.14, 15, 16, 17, 18.
  • 2. His Creed, or at least this Article of it, the Communion of Saints.
  • 3. The Covenant, by which we are bound to endeavour a Reformation ac­cording to the word of God, and the best Reformed Churches, who abhor such Communions.
  • 4. The Directory which saith, the ignorant and scandalous are not fit to receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper: yea the Common Praier book it self which shuts the doore against, and keeps out open and notorious evil livers.
  • 5. And lastly, the Principles, hopes, expectations, and joynt endea-of all godly ministers.

Answer. Mr Heming loves Creed and Covenant, and Directory when they'll serve his turn, but all the yeare after, he loves them as he loves me, But let us examine how my Communion is contrary to all these, and to the Scripture, and to the other things that he hath named. My Communion is to this purpose:

  • 1. I desire the purity and due administration, and receiving of the Sacrament, as well as Mr Heming or any of his Disciples.
  • 2. But I find no Text in Scrip­ture that either warrants me to refrain the Sacrament, because scanda­lous persons do receive it, or that doth condemne me for receiving with such, all the while I endeavour to fit and approve mine own heart as becometh that ordinance.
  • 3. Nor do I use when I come about that work, to be so scrupulous in looking what others are, as I do [Page 8]desire to examine my selfe, and so I take the Apostles meaning to be 1 Cor. 11.29. Now how this Communion of mine should be so op­posite to all that is called good or holy, as he censures it, it is far sooner said then prooved; He saith it Diametrically opposeth.

1. The Scriptures, the plaint Letter, 1 Cor. 5.9, 10, 11. 2 Cor. 6.14, 15, 16.17.

Answ. The plain Letter in the former place is this: I wrote unto you in an Epistle not to company with fornicators: yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the Covetous, or Extortioners, or with Idolators; for then ye must needs go out of the world: But now I have written unto you, not to keep company if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an Idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such a one, no not to eat.

Now in this plain Letter, I would desire Mr Heming to tell me whether the holiest man in the Church of Corinth, migth not have his brother fornicator, his brother covetous, his brother Idolator &c. Let him construe me those words, If any man that is called a brother be a fornicator &c. 2 Let him shew me in all these words the least syllable that speaketh against my Communion: Yes, that he will do presently with a wet finger, Not to company, not to eat with such a one. But I will deny that not companying meaneth in that sense, and that not cating with, meaneth in that sence, but in a civill sence, and I will give him till this day month to prove the contrary: So little is the Letter plain against me, unlesse you will take his glosse with it.

The plain Letter in the second place is this, Be ye not unequally yoaked together with unbelievers; for what fellowship hath righteousnesse with un­righteousnesse? and what Communion hath light with darknesse? or what concord hath Christ with Belial, or what part hath he that believeth with an Infidel? And what agreement hath the Temple of God with I­dols? &c. wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate, &c. Now let me make his Argument for him out of these words.

If you may not marry with Heathen Idolaters, you may not re­ceive the Sacrament with some Christians. But &c. Ergo. Never doubt the truth of this Syllogism; for it is in the Mood and Figure called A baculo ad Angulum: Who seeth not plainly that the Apostle speak­eth here of open and professed Idolatrous Heathens? and from them to argue to Christians that professe the name of Christ, is such a kind of Logick that when Mr Heming hath made it good, I will give him an Answer: So little plain is the Letter of either of these Texts against me, that if you plow not with his heifer, yea find not the riddle.

2. He saith my Communion opposeth my Creed, or at least this Article of it, The Communion of Saints: he is decieved; It opposeth not my Creed, not the Communion of Saints as it meaneth in my Creed, but it opposeth his Creed, and the Communion of Saints that his new Creed holdeth out. If this were the question before us, I could easily shew him how he straitens the word Communion more, and applyes the word Saints otherwise then the Scripture doth, when it speaketh to that point, of the Saints Communion. There may be Saints sound in Scripture sence, that are neither of Mr Hemings opinion, practice nor Canonizing, & there may be found a Communion of Saints in other things besides receiving of the Sacrament. He makes a great businesse of it in pag. 16. 17. as if I spoke blasphemy when I utterd these words, For the fancy is to make a noise of only the Saints receiving; meaning the Saints of his Kalender and Canonizing; But he cals hea­ven and earth to witnesse, and is ready to rent his clothes, and his hair, as if I called the Communion of Saints a fancy. No Mr Heming I doe not, it is one of the Articles of my Creed, & I believe it; but you must let me suppose withall that you fancy such a Communion of Saints and such a Saintship, as when you have done all you can you will never be able to prove it. And therefore, never make such a do as if I bla­sphemed, or knew not what I said, or it dropt from my pen before I was aware and I know not what; I am ready to say it again and again, that you fancy a Communion of Saints, you can never make good: And if this were the question between us, I could shew you, that I rave not, but understand what I say, and that I am not utterly ig­norant what the Scripture and my Creed meaneth by the Communion of Saints. If you should declaime, and raile, and rage as you do, seven years by Vtoxater clock I must yet still hold, that there may be a De­vill in you Communion and a Saint in mine; and that all are not Saints and Devils that you hold so: and therefore you may save your labour, and spare your breath about this matter. I could tell you of some, that have carried as faire a shew as any Saint in your Kalender, and yet have been but painted sepulchers, and I could name some that have been called as bad as you call me; [and that by those that took on them as much Saintship as you do] which yet have been reall Israelites without guile.

3. He saith, my Communion diametrically opposeth the Covenant and the plat-form of the best Reformed Churches; if his doe not more, I will lose my stake. These are against separation, gathering of Churches, withdrawing from the Communion of the publick Con­gregation, [Page 10]and so am I: they are against Preaching without Orders, and so am I: They are against all pernicious and damnable doctrines and opinions, and so am I: And these would have the Sacrament kept as pure as possible, and so would I. If Mr Heming's new lighted way be nearer the Covenant, and the pattern of the best Reformed Churches, let him take all.

4. What he saith of my Communion, being against whatsoever is called good and holy, and against the Principles, hopes, expectations and endea­vours of all godly Ministers, all is but to lay inke enough upon my opi­nion, that it may seeme black to purpose; and when he hath all done, it is but an opinion that he himself puts upon me, and will make me to hold it whether I will or no: For I never medled with him about mixt Communion [as I said before] nor pleaded for it, but kept me to the question about Judas his receiving of the Sacrament, and yet will hee needs foist in this for the question, for without this, hee thought he could not so handsomely abuse me. He confesseth it was his resolution to wound my reputation that it should never bee healed, and he hath taken up this rusty weapon which he thinks will doe it: I must fence for my selfe as well as I can. Have at him then with some of the language of the beast to begin with: ‘Rumpatur quisquit rumpitur invidiâ.’

And so let's to't, upon the proper quarrell and quession that is be­tween us.

My First Assertion is this:

That the sop which Iudas received, and Satan with it, he received it not on the Passeover night, but two nights before: and that he received it not at the Passeover supper at Ierusalem, but at a common supper at Bethany.

Mr Heming stateth the Question first to be discussed in this Asser­tion, Thus, Now here ariseth a great question between Mr Lightfoot and my selfe, namely, which was the Supper at Bethany, That mentio­ned, Ioh. 12.1, 2, 3. &c. or that Ioh. 13.1, 2, 3?

He saith, That in Ioh. 13. and upon that mistaken place, hath built his wood, hay and stubble. Boyes and Girles if ye can but read English, come forth and shame this great master in Israel; read both the Chapters and then tell him which speakes of the Supper at Bethany. But I An­swer.

That in Iohn 12. was the Supper at Bethany, and not that in Ioh. 13.

Reply.

Conclamatum est, I have lost the day already and never a stroke struck, and Boyes and Girles must hoot mee out of the field. But harke ye, my honest Boyes and Girles of Vttoxater, before ye fall a shounting, let me tell you a story: There was once a poor wo­man foole [if my memory faile not, Seneca's wife kept her for her pastime at Rome] and she was suddainly struck blind and lost her seeing: Now all the world could not perswade her that she was blind, but cryed out that the house was dark, and thought rather that the day and the Sunne had lost their light, then shee her sight. My lads, if you must shame any body for blind beetlednesse, it must bee Mr Heming that calls you out, for hee sees not what hee should see in Ioh. 13. and yet he cryes out, the blindnesse is mine at Ioh. 12. The fault is in his eyes, but you cannot perswade him so, but that I have lost my sight.

How miserably low and lost am I in his esteeme? when for my Moralls he holds mee worse then any man, and for mine in­tellectualls lesse then any reading boy. Though I know hee thinks of me as bad as bad can be, I thank him for it; yet truly, I did not think hee had reputed mee so very silly and senselesse, as either not to see at all, that the Supper in Ioh. 12. was at Bethany, or so little to observe it as to commit so grosse a mistake as hee would put upon me. Sir, Certainly either you are mightily mistaken in mee, or you would put a mighty fallacy upon the Reader: Assure your selfe I can spell and read the word Bethany in Ioh. 12.1. as well as any Boy or Girle in all Vtoxater Parish, and I saw it as plaine when I entred upon this Dispute, as ever your eyes say it in all your life: But you did not see Bethany in Ioh. 13.1.2.3. which I did, and that is the reason of all this vapouring. And hereupon, you either sillily or willingly, falsifie our Question, and so the poor Boyes and Girles that are called out to shame me, will either shame themselves for shouting at they know not what, or rather shame you for vapouring at you know not what. Our Question is not whether the Supper in Ioh. 12. or the Supper in Ioh. 13. were the Supper at Bethany, but our Question is Whether that Supper in Ioh. 13. were not at Bethany, as well as that Supper in Ioh. 12. I assert it was; but Master Heming de­nies it.

Mr Heming. That in Iohn 12. was the Supper at Bethany, and not that in Iohn 13. For in Iohn 13. Bethany is not so much as once named: but in Chap. 12. it is, As also in Matth. 26. Mark 14.

Reply.

I see the man cannot see one inch further into a milstone then there is a hole peckt in it before him; boyes and girles might have gi­ven such a reason as this. Children, was the Supper in Iohn 13. at Be­thany? No forsooth master, for Bethany is not once named there: But such a master in Israel as Mr Heming should have looked a little further about him, before he had given his determination: Children, was the Supper in Iohn 13. at Ierusalem? No forsooth master, for Ierusalem is not once named there: Yet Master Heming holds it was: and here he hath given me an argument against his own tenet. He saies that that Supper in Iohn 13. was at Ierusalem, and that it was on the Passeover night, and proves by that Chapter that Iudas went out before the Sacrament, and yet is there not the least mention of Ierusa­lem or the Passeover night, nor of the Sacrament in all that Chapter. He alledgeth this Chapter of Iohn as his chief ground to prove that Iudas did not receive the Sacrament, when there is not one word of the Sacrament in all Iohns Gospel. He produceth this Evangelist to judge of a matter [and that to gainsay the other three that averre it] who speaks not one word fo the thing to be judged of. And yet when I say the Supper in Iohn 13. was at Bethany, he thinks this a good rea­son, to say no, because Bethany is not there named.

Before I come to shew that Bethany was the place of that Supper,

I shall first shew that that Supper was before the Passeover day, and Secondly, that it was two dayes before the Passeover and at Be­thany, although indeed the circumstance of the place be not so mate­riall to our dispute, as the circumstance of the time.

I say therefore, that the Supper in Iohn 13. was before the Passeo­ver day came. And that I prove from the plaine words of Iohn himself in the first verse of that Chapter. Now before the feast of the Passeo­ver, &c. whereupon I argue thus.

Argum. 1. That Supper that was before the feast of the Passeover was not on the Passeover day, but before it.

But that Supper in Iohn 13. was before the feast of the Passeover. verse 1. Ergo it was not on the Passeover day, but before it.

To this M. Heming giveth this answer Page 10.

In Iohn 13.1. Now before the feast, &c. [...] not meant two dayes before, as he would have it: the words are [...] meaning imme­diately before, &c, as Luk. 11.38. [...], The Pharisee woudred that he washed not before dinner, that is immediately before dinner.

Reply.

Rarely Criticall! But I doubt, Animus est in patinis: by the Feast of the Passeover Mr Heming understandethth the very Passe­over meale, and so he sheweth his meaning in pag. 11. the sop was gi­ven (saith he) at an Ordinary or Common Supper which Christ had the same night before he ate the Passeover.

  • 1. Let him but shew me from one end of the Bible to another, where the word [...] signifies barely a meal, and I will lose my sup­per to morrow night: when there is mention of the feast of Taberna­cles, the feast of Dedication, the feast of Pentecost, the feast of Pas­seover, &c, Mr Heming it seems, thinks of victualls stirring, and looks after his Commons; but any man that is not a child in Scrip­ture, knows that the expression means the whole space and solemnity of these times. He would make but a hungry exposition of the feast of expiation, which was a most strict fasting day.
  • 2. If he had consulted Latine translators upon Iohn 23.1. he would have found that they render it. Ante diem festum Paschae, applying it to the day, and not to the meale.
  • 3. Was not the feast of the Passeover begun, before any supper that day was stirring? I believe wiser men then either you or I will tell you; that the feast of the Passeover began as soon as ever the Paschal lambe began to be slain.
  • And 4. Whereas he talks of a common supper which they had the same night before they are the Passeover, I deny it; for it was a holy suppe [...] of their Peace offerings, as I have learned by some better ac­quainted with Iewish customes, then I doubt either you or I shall be these two dayes. And if it were so, Iudas communicated in this Supper by your own confession, and that's something towards a cheese.

Mr Heming. At that Supper Ioh. 13. Christs hour was come: v. 1. so that he was betrayed the very same night, as 'tis evident, comparing Ioh. 13.37, 38. with John 18.1, 2, 3. and Mat. 26.34. Mark 14.30. This [Page 15]discourse passed betwixt Christ and Peter, the very night in which he was betrayed.

Reply.

Is it most true that Christs houre was then come; for the de­signe of his betraying was set a foot that night, but that he was be­trayed that night, I deny, as evident as it is in his looking glasse that he would shew you. There is indeed in Iohn 13.37, 38. a passage a­bout the Cocks crowing, that makes Mr Heming think the matter is Cock sure on his side, whereas it may be but the crowing of his own brains, that tunes it into a construction to serve his turn, and not the sense and meaning of the place it self. The words of the Evange­list are these, Peter said unto him Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thy sake. Iesus answered, wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? verily, verily, I say unto thee, the Cock shall not crow till thou hast denied me thrice.

For the understanding of these words I would desire the Reader to observe these two things.

  • 1. That Christ in Mat. 26.34. saith verily I say unto thee, that this night before the Cock crow, &c. and Mar. 14.30. That this day even in this night before the Cock crow twice, &c. for that was indeed the very night in which Peter did deny him: but here in Iohn 13.38. he doth not so determine the time, but saith onely the Cock shall not crow, &c.
  • 2. That by these words, The Cock shall not crow till thou hast denied me thrice, he meaneth not, thou shalt deny me thrice before any Cock crow, for he denied him but once before a Cock crew, as is. plain Mar. 14.68, 69, 70, but he meaneth thou shalt deny me thrice in the space of Cocks crowing, which space was the third part of the night, Mat. 13.35. And so Mark helpeth to understand it, when in him it is explained, before the Cock crow twice, &c. Mar. 14.30. This there­fore helpeth Mr Hemings cause never a jot, nor proveth it that that night Ioh. 13. was the night that Peter denied Christ: for Christ might have said as much as he saith there a twelve moneth before Peter denied him, and yet the sense very sound and currant, Peter, art thou so confident and resolute? I tell thee that the time will come when in the time of cocks crowing thou shalt deny me three times over.

Now whereas Mr Heming would have you compare John 13.37.38. with Iohn 18.1, 2, 3. his meaning is to this purpose, that Christ [Page 14]having given Peter notice of his deniall, and spoken these words in Chap. 14. & 15, & 16. & 17. he presently goes over the brook Kidron, and there is apprehended: but he would make you leap over a stile by the way, and take no notice of it, and so you may chance break your shins. What makes he of that clause, John 14.3 [...]. Arise, let us go hence, let him tell me whether Christ went now. I know he will say, he rose from the Table after the Sa­crament, and went out of doores towards Kidron, and spoke the passages in Chapter 15. and 16. & 17. as hee walkt along: In very good time, and a very likely businesse: but Iohn 18.1▪ saith when he had spoken these words, he went forth: construe me that.

Argum. 2. A second Argument that I use to prove that the Supper in Iohn 13. was before the Passeover day, is from verse 27, 28, 29 of that Chapter, where when Iudas had received the sop and Satan: and Iesus said to him, What thou doest doe quickly, Some of the Disciples thought because Iudas had the bag, that Ie­sus had said unto him, buy those things that we have need of a­gainst the feast. Now if they had things to buy against the feast, the feast was not yet come.

The answer that Master Heming returns to this Argument is first thus, Perhaps Christ did not eat the Paschall Lamb upon the same day the Jewes did, &c. And then the feast the Disciples dreamed of might very well be the Iewes Passeover, kept a day after: I could speak more for proof of this from Iohn. 18.21. and 19.14. then ever Mr. Lightfoot will be able to answer.

Reply.

Perhaps the Evangelists are not to be believed, because they speak contrary to Master Hemings humour; for they tell you as plain as plaine can bee that Christ did eat the Paschall Lamb upon the same day that the Iewes did. See Matth. 26.17. Mark 14.12. Luk. 27.7.8. And yet he puts a perhaps upon it, to squeeze out something to his purpose. Sure the man did not know that the Paschall Lambes were slaine by the Priests at the Altar, and the blood sprinkled there, and they slaine, and the blood sprinkled in the name of a Paschall: and sure he did not know how high a transgression it was reputed by the Iewes to eat the Passeover on a wrong day: had he known and weighed these things, per­haps [Page 16]he would find it a harder businesse for Christ to eat the Pas­seover a day before the Iewes, then he dreamed of. But why do I talk of such things as these to him, when he puts a perhaps upon so plaine Texts of the Evangelists.

As for that tiring work that he would set me upon out of John 18.28. and 19.14. I will tell him this before hand, that if I can make nothing of those places, I will deny mine own skill, judgement, and opinion before I will deny the plaine text of the Evangelists as he doth: But I need not to eat mine assertion for any thing that those places hold out against it.

Hee is it but little acquainted with Scripture, or with the Iewes cu­stomes about the Passeover that knowes not that there were Passeover Bullocks and other Peace-offerings to be eaten in the week of the Feast, as well as the Lamb was upon its day. 2. Chron. 30.21.24. and 35 7, 8. And that these are called the Passeover as well as the Lambe. Deut. 16.2. compared with Exod. 12.5.

And to take up these Texts, which in Master Hemings con­ception will bee everlasting tiring irons to me. in Iohn 18.28. The Iewes went not into Pilates judgement Hall, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Pass [...]over: that is, but that they might eat the solemne Peace-offerings that were to be eaten at the Passeover, and which are called the Passeover; and that in Chapter 19.14. it was the preparation of the Passeover, and about the sixth houre: that is, it was the day in which they pre­pared these Paschall bullocks and Peace offerings for their holy diet being the dayes of the feast. What so great difficulty is there in these Texts, and what incongruity is there in this exposition of them?

A second Answer that Mr Heming giveth to my Argument is this, [but I must tell you beforehand it is somewhat homely.]

Observe saith he] how he would daub over his own mistake with the untempered morter of the Disciples ignorance; what some of them thought proceeded of ignorance. Iohn 13. 28.29. &c. and a little after: For the Disciples ignorance, and Mr Lightfoots grounded upon theirs, Christ had no moe Feasts.

Reply.

Now come out good manners: he that useth the Disci­ples so uncivilly, I may put off my Hat and thanke him, [Page 17]that he useth me no worse then he doth. I must tell the Apostles and Evangelists, that let them take heed what they say, and how they place their words; for if they speak but one syllable awry from Mr. Hemings humour, he will tell them what they are before all the Parish. And I pray you Sir what were the Apostles ignorant of, that one may dawbe walls with their ignorance? Could they not tell whether the feast were come or no? That's the question that you and I are upon, out of the words in Iohn 13.28, 29. and if you say they were ignorant of that, you speak like Mr. Heming in state and majesty: and if they were igno­rant of that, they were ignorant to the purpose. Come on my boyes and girles, when Holidayes were in fashion, could you tell when a Ho­liday came? If you could, you were wiser then Mr. Heming holds the Disciples were.

But it may be he will say, that he doth not mean they were ignorant of this but of something else, as he saith, They knew not that he was to be betrayed that night; why, what is this to our question? The Evangelist saith, They thought Iesus had bidden Judas buy something against the feast; hereupon I say, if it were against the feast, the feast was not yet come. To this he gives this answer, what some of them thought proceeded of ignorance, for, they knew not that he was to be betrayed. Is not this an answer as pro­found and direct in it selfe as it is well mannered towards the Disciples? I say still, the Disciples thought Judas had been bidden to buy some­thing against the feast, ergo, the Disciples knew that the feast was not yet come. Let him answer me this directly, and like a man that desireth to find out the truth.

Arg. 3 And third Argument that I give to prove that that supper, Joh. 13. was before the Passeover day, and not on it, proves a pitfall to Mr. Heming, beyond my expectation, for I did not think he had been so blind, as to have been so caught: My words were these, We know that the Lords Sup­per was given the Passoever day at night, viz. the first Sabbath of the Feast; the meaning of my argument I shall give by and by.

Now Mr. Heming thinketh that I speak the savourest and bravest nonsense that ever did man: I shall give his censure in his words at length, and not in figures, for it is pity any of it should be lost.

Pag. 1 Whereas he saith (saith he) That we know the Lords Supper was given on the Passeover day at night; viz the first Sabbath of the Feast, whereon the Iews are the Paschall Lamb; I am afraid he understandeth neither what hee saith, nor whereof be affirmeth; But be it so, and then

  • 1. How was Christ upon the Crosse on the preparation day, the day before the Sabbath, according to those Scriptures, Mat. 27.62. Mark 15.42. Luke 23.54. Ioh. 18.28. & 19.14, 31, & 42 verses.
  • [Page 18]2. How could he rise the day after the Sabbath, namely the first day of the week, Mar. 16.2. Mat. 28.1. since hee lay-three dayes in the grave? Doth the man beleeve (thinke yee) that Christ ate the Passeover a day or two after he was dead? or that be did rise the next day after he had eaten it? Spectatum admissi risum teneatis amici? What day thinks be Christ was betrayed and ta­ken? or how long-was it between his taking and crucifying? I wish the man bee not found tardy here.

Repl. You have your wish into your own bosom & that with a witness: It is not I that am found tardy here, but yourself, so as that you'l be a­shamed of it, when you see it. I warrant you Mr. Heming and his Disciples have had many a pleasant laughing, and triumphing fit over this poor sentence of mine, and have hug'd one another in this advantage of nonsense, as he has set it out, no doubt most learnedly to them. Mee thinkes I see him scratch the elbow, and hear him laugh hither. But I must put him in mind of Seneca's wifes fool again; hee cries out I am blind, when the blindnesse is his owne.

This great Master of Israel never dreamed in all his life, of any Sab­bath, but only the ordinary weekly Sabbath, and from this ignorance comes all this laughter; but it seems I must be his teacher now, and in­form him, that the first and last day in the Passeover week was a Sab­baticall day, or a Sabbath, and so was also the first and last day of the Feast of Tabernacles, &c. Had he but well weighted Exod. 12.16. Levit. 23.7. and seriously consulted how the word Sabbath is to be under­stood in Levit. 23.15. I am sure he would have gone a mile on my errand, before he would have given this censure upon those words of mine, for his own credits sake. Why do you not laugh now Mr. Heming? I hope I have you here at a full check mate; and I suppose by this time you see, that the more you have triumphed over mee here, the more shamefully you have discovered your own ignorance. Would you not give a gray groat now with all your heart, that these words of yours had never been born? Be wiser another time, you know not what an art I have of setting mousetraps.

I say therefore again, that on the Passeover day at night the first Sabbath or first Sabbaticall day of the feast was entred: and hereupon I argue thus. The Disciples when Iudas had received the sop, and Jesus bad him, Quod facis fac cito, thought that he bad him buy something: But if that were the Passeover night, the Sabbath was now entred, and buying any thing was neither lawfull nor possible. Therefore that was not on the Passeover night, but some night before: For it is senselesse and groundlesse to think, that the Disciples should think of Christs bid­ding him buy something, when nothing was possibly to be bought.

Upon that text therefore, Iohn 13.29. Some thought that Iesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast. I conclude,

1. That that was not at the Passeover supper, because then nothing could be bought, a Sabbaticall day being entred. And 2. That that was before the feast of the Passeover, because the Disciples thought of buying something against the feast: If this my arguing be not direct, let him correct mee, if it bee, let him give mee direct answers, if hee can.

Pag. But before I leave this text and argument, will you heare a piece of Logicke that he venteth upon my arguing from it? If from this Scripture (saith he) be will conclude that there was another feast, why may not I conclude that Judas gave something to the poore?

Reply. Braines and staires are not better Ryme, then this is Reason; I know not what Your Logick may conclude, but another to conclude so, I must tell him, it is to take up more then comes to his share. If I had concluded from this Scripture, that Judas bought something against the feast, you might have concluded in equity, that Judas gave something to the poore; but when I conclude no more but this, that there was a feast, your share of concluding comes to no more but this, that there were some poore. And as properly as one may conclude, that there were some poore, to whom something was to be given, from this, because they thought he bad give something to the poore: so as properly may it be concluded, that the feast was to come, against which something was to bee bought, from this, because they thought he bade him, buy something against the feast.

Arg. A fourth Argument I use to prove that the Supper in Joh. 13. at which the sop was given to Judas, was not on the Passeover day, but before, is this.

The Devill entred into Judas before the feast of the Passeover came.

But the Devill entred into Judas at the Supper, in Joh. 13.

Ergo, That Supper, Joh. 13. was before the feast of the Passeover came. The major is proved, Luk. 22.3. Satan entred into Judas, &c. ver. 7. Then came the day of unleavened bread, &c. By which it is apparent, that Satan was entred into Judas before the day of unleavened bread, or the Passe­over day came: unlesse Mr. Heming will except at the Evangelists Or­der, which if he doe, let him give a good reason why, lest hee shew himself too bold with the text, for his own turn.

To the force of this Argument he answers nothing, but only because I said, The Devill entred into Judas at Bethany, hee catches up the word Bethany, and keeps a coyle with that, but to the pith of the Argument he saith nothing. Only in what answer he giveth to this Argument, which indeed is to no purpose, let me challenge him upon one passage which is [Page 20] 3 utterly shamelesse, and that is, when he saith, The conspiracy is as cleerly placed before the sop, as before the Passeover; but, Dic quibus in terris, & Phyllida solus habeto; Let him but shew me where, and then I'le say he speaks like a Scripture man; but if he cannot, I must say it is extreame impudence and impiety to assert any such thing; for he makes his fancy equall with the sacred text. There is not one syllable, letter, or tittle in all the Gospel, that Judas conspiracy was before the sop, but there is as plaine an evidence that his conspiracy was before the Passeover, as there is of any thing in the Gospel; and yet because this Gentleman hath fancied that the sop was given on the Passeover night, he dares to equall his fancy with the divine writ, and say; The conspiracy is as cleerly placed before the sop as before the Passeover: That is, in his brains, but no where else; well fare a bold face in time of need.

5 Another Argument, and wherewith I will clench up all, to prove the supper, Joh. 13. at which Judas received the sop, was before the Passe­over day, is this, That it is not probable, nor can be conceived, that Judas should receive the sop, and so the Devill with it, and go to the High Priests, and bargain with them, receive a Band of men, Joh. 18.3. and betray his Master and all upon one night: for besides the unlikelinesse of it, the text is plain, that from the time of the receiving of the sop, he sought opportunity to betray him, Mat. 26.16. or how he might conveniently, &c. Mar. 14.11. Luk. 22.6. And how improper it is to say a man seeks conveniency or oportunity, when be runs upon a thing and doth it on a suddaine; I referre to any one of common capacity.

12 Now Mr. Heming gives this argument a threefold answer.

First he saith, 'Tis probable all this might be done in one night: for Judas was not so far from the High Priest: the band of men not so far to seeke: the Devill, Judas and the Jews not so backward in driving on this damnable de­signe, as hee would insinuate. I my selfe have knowne in this betraying age, five times more then this amounts to, brought about in as short a night.

Reply. I cannot imagine with all the skill I have, what that should be, that was five times more then the betraying of the Sonne of God: And I wonder how Mr. Heming came to know that Judas was so neer the High priest, and that the Band of men was so ready at hand. There was an old wandring Jew talkt and ballated of, twixt twenty and thirty years agoe, if one had had the luck to have met with him, he would have told the whole businesse: It seems Mr. Heming hath had the hap to meet with some of his intelligence, and that makes him so exact in this relation: but poor we that goe by the old light of the foure Evan­gelists can see no such matter. Mr. Heming grants that Judas sate down with Christ on the Passeover night, and ate the common supper with him, and he sticks not much to grant that hee ate the Paschall Lambe [Page 21]with him; well, Christ after that, did but deliver the Sacrament, sing a hymne, speak a few words to his Disciples, goe into the mount of Olives, and there Judas was presently at hand to apprehend him: Now how Judas in so short a time as this should do all his businesse; get toge­ther the chief Priests and Captains, Luk. 22.4. (it may be the wande­ring Jew said they supt all together this night) bargain with them, raise a band of men, get Lanthorns and Torches all ready, &c. he must be of a quick beleefe, that beleves such quicknesse.

A second Answer that he gives is this.

Hee (following the old trade) most shamefully abuseth Mat. 26.16. Mar. 14.11. when he saith, 'Tis plain from those Texts, That from the time of the receiving of the sop, Judas sought opportunity to betray Christ. Read the verses before and after, and then tell me, if you can see but the print or footsteps of any such thing. Is it not plain in those places, that from that time Christ reproved Judas for his covetous indignation, at the spending of the ointment, he sought op­portunity, and from that reproofe tooke occasion to betray him? 'Tis evident, he sought how hee might conveniently betray Christ before hee received the sop.

Reply. 'Tis policy to cry theefe first: Be sure to tell mee of abusing Scripture, loud enough, that no body may hear me tell tales of you; but before I have done, I hope I shall have my tale heard too. Now how much abuse Mat. 26.16. Mar. 14.11. to the purpose mentioned, will appear in the discussion of our next question, about the Supper at Bethany, upon which I shall instantly enter, when I have first challenged him upon two assertions which he will never be able to make good whilest his name is Mr. Heming unlesse it be by some Gospel of his own making. The first is this, That Judas tooke occasion to betray Christ from his reproving of him for his covetous indignation at the spending of the ointment. If M. H. have any other ground for this, but that he judgeth of anothers impatience to be crost in his humour, by his owne, let him shew it; and if hee shew any solid ground for it, I'le venture the burning of my cap.

The other is this, That 'tis evident that he sought how be might convenient­ly betray Christ before be received the sop; where is it so evident? why, in his fancy and by his new light, but not by any one letter in all the Gospels. If it were true that Judas received the sop on the Passeover night as hee fancieth, then he said something, but that I deny, and have alledged my arguments and reasons why I deny it, the which I refer to any impartiall and indifferent judgment.

Those that hold that Iudas did not receive the Sacrament, do lay this as the corner stone of their opinion; That Judas upon the receiving of the sop went out before the Sacrament was administred: wil you hear the words of [Page 22] Zanchius in stead of many? Etsi multi & magni viri hoc docuerint & scrip­serint, ego tamen nullo modo concedo aut concedere possum; although many men of great esteeme have taught and written (that Iudas received the Sacrament) neverthelesse I cannot nor at all do yeeld unto it. And what is his reason, Quia apertè pugnat cum Historia Iohannis Evangelistae. Because it plainly thwarteth the History of the Evangelist John. And how doth it so? Iohannes cap. 13. ver. 30. apertè scribit Iudam postquam accepisset offulam a Christo (injuscubo ni­mirum agni assi) intinctam, statim [...] exivisse. Because John in chap. 13. vers. 30. writeth expresly that Judas after he had received the sop dipped (name­ly in the sauce of the rosted Lamb) went straight way forth, Zanch. in quartum praecep.

Mr. Heming is of the very same opinion, and urge him with the au­thority of the other Evangelists that say that Judas sate downe to the Passeover with the rest of the Disciples: yes that's true, saith he, but before the Sacrament, Christ gave him the sop and he was gone. It seemeth exceeding strange to me, that this use should be made of this Chapter of John 13. who speaketh not one fillable of the Sacrament, and which telleth plainly that that supper at which the sop was gi­ven, was ante diem festum Paschae, as the best translaters have rendred it, and that most truly.

It were enough therefore for the overthrowing of Mr. Hemings opinion, to prove only that that supper in John 13. was before the Passeover day, and we needed not looke any further how many daies or nights it was before, yet that I may do him justice and my selfe right in the maintaining of this my assertion, I yet goe further, and averre, that ‘ That Supper in John 13. was in Bethany.’

For the proofe of which I thus argue;

  • Judas his conspiracy began from the Devils entring into him, which was when he received the sop at the Supper in John 13.
  • But Judas his conspiracy began from Bethany;
  • Therefore the Devils entering into him, when he received the sop at the supper in John 13. was at Bethany.

The major proposition, that Judas conspiracy began from the De­vils entring into him is as cleare in Luke 22.3, 4. as the Sunne at noon, Then entered Satan into Judas Iscariot being one of the number of the twelve: And he went his way and communed with the chiefe Priests and Captaines how he might betray him unto them and they were glad, &c. and then in vers: 7. Then came the day of unleavened bread, &c. Now let all the world, nay his very boyes and girles judge upon this matter: Children, when did Judas begin his treason? Why, Satan entered into him, and then he went [Page 23]his way and communed with the High-priests &c. what: was this before the Passeover day or no? yes, it was before, for Satan entered into him and he communed with the chiefe Priests &c. and then the day of unleavened bread came afterward. Would not any boy or girle that hath any capacity, and would not any man or woman that reads the Scripture consci [...]ntiously, and is led by the Scriptu [...]e, and leads it not to his owne opinion that he hath taken up, understand these words of Luke in this manner? Let M. H. give a satisfactory and convincing rea­son why they are not to be thus understood, and he may then crow and triumph, but if he cannot, then doth he wrest the Scripture, and having set downe his owne opinion, he will bring the Scripture to it, to speake for his purpose by hooke or by crooke: I urge the Evan­gelists words againe, Then Satan entered into Judas, and he went his way and communed with the chiefe Priests &c. and let Mr. Hemings owne Di­sciples be judges, whether this prove not, That Judas his conspiracy began from the Devils entering into him: and that the Devill entered into him upon his receiving of the sop at the Supper in John 13. they will not deny.

Now I need not to prove the minor, That Judas his conspiracy beganne from Bethany; for Mr. Heming doth grant it, when he saith, Is it not plaine from these places Mat: 26.16. Mark: 14.11. that from the time Christ reproved Judas for his covetous indignation at the spending of the ointment, Pag. 12 hee sought opportunity, and from that reproofe tooke occasion to betray him, p. 12. and in p. 13. he saith againe, Nothing else passed at the Supper at Bethany concern­ing Iudas but Christs rebuking him for his indignation at the spending of the ala­baster box of ointment.

My conclusion therefore is good, till M. H. can give a cleare and sa­tisfactory answer to the proofe of my major, which I beleeve hee will hardly do this weeke: That the Devils entering into Iudas when he received the sop at the Supper in Iohn 13. was at Bethany.

All that M. H. saies about this businesse, is this;

  • Pag. 13 1. Luke 22.3. Speakes nothing at all of the Supper at Bethany, nor of any thing done there.
  • 2. Though all the Evangelists place the conspiracy before the Passeover, yet they place not the giving of the sop at Bethany. Read Mat. 26. Mark. 14. Iohn 12. and see if you can finde any such thing there.

Reply. So may I answer him againe: Iohn 13. speakes nothing of any supper at Ierusalem; read the chapter through and see if you can finde any such word, or any mention [...] the Sacrament there: And I may as well argue, read Mat. 26. Marke [...] ▪ [...]ohn 12. and see if you can find any such thing as any sop given at all: ergo, there was no sop given: [Page 24]The man is at bo-peepe, and where it will serve his turne you must be­leeve such a thing is there, though it be not written there, and where it will not serve his turne you must not beleeve it because it is not written there, nay, sometime you must not beleeve it though it be writ­ten there. I shall take the places he refers you to, into handling by and by.

I yet go further in my assertion, because I desire to deal in all plain­nesse, and I say

That supper at Bethany from which Iudas began his conspiracy upon Satans entering into him, was two dayes before the Passeover. And for the proofe of this I produce Mat. 26.2. Marke 14.1. where there is mention of two dayes before the Passeover, and presently after, of Christs being at meate in Bethany, and then of Iudas his going to the High-priests &c.

Now here Mr. Heming sheweth all his learning, and his sincere dea­ling with the Scripture on a cluster: will you here a new lighted Commentary upon these Texts, such a one as you do not heare every day unlesse it be from him, and learne but this kinde of way of ex­pounding Scripture, and you may hold what you will and bring the Scripture to maintaine it. His words are these,

Pag. 9 The following Scriptures, viz. Mat. 26.2. Mark. 14.1. do not at all prove the Supper at Bethany to have been just two dayes before the Passeover, but that two dayes before the Passeover, the chiefe Priests and Scribes sought how they might take Christ by craft and subtilty &c. and at last concluded it must bee on the feast day (viz. the feast of the Passeover) lest there should be an uprore, &c. Math. 14.1, 2.

The Supper at Bethany is as likely to have been six daies before the Passeover as two, Then Iesus six dayes before the Passeover came to Bethany, &c. There they made him a supper, Iohn 12.1, 2.

Reply. You know what kinde of reading of the Bible he made, that found a green bay horse or mule there, & truly this way of expounding is much like it, he that will go such a way may find any thing he hath a minde to; but God help them that are led by such an Expositor. Mr. Heming reads Marke 14.1, 2, 3. thus, Two dayes before the feast of the Passe­over, the chiefe Priests sought to take Christ by craft, but they said not on the feast day lest there be any uproare. And six dayes before the Passeover, Iesus be­ing in Bethany as he sate at meat, &c. Now I pray you is this according to the Gospell of Marke, or according to the Gospel of Mr. Heming? If this bee not shamelesse wresting of Scripture, I know not what is.

Here are two things that he would foist upon the Evangelists that I [Page 25]durst sweare were never in their meanings: The first is, that he would perswade you that Matthew and Mark do change the proper order and time of their story; telling a story of two dayes before the Passeover first, and then telling a story of sixe dayes before the Passeover after it. And the second is, that hee would perswade you that the supper at Be­thany in John 12.1. and the Supper at Bethany in Mat: 26.6. & Marke 14.3. was one and the same; and for this purpose he hath linked Mat. 26. Marke 14. & John 12. together four or five times in his discourse, as if the matter were past all doubting.

Let me talke with him a little about both these, particularly,

And first, about his perswading that Matthewes and Markes order is here inverted, and the story of the supper at Bethany dislocated in them, I shall propose two or three things to him, which if he had considered of, or knowne before, it may be he would have beene more cautelous for his credits sake, then thus blinde Biard like to venture he knowes not, nor cares not on what.

1. Let him shew me but one dislocation, I say but one from the be­ginning of Markes Gospell to this very place, and then I will grant that there might be some colour of dislocation here. If this grandee had studied the order of the Evangelists, as well and seriously as some others have done, he durst not for shame have said thus much, especi­ally of Marke who is so exact and direct for his method, that I say it againe, from the beginning of his Gospell to this very place, Mr. H. cannot shew, not one story, I say not one, which he can prove by any sound evidence, or reason to be dislocated; no, nor from this place to the end of his Gospel: It was luck in a bag then, that he that is so di­rect in all his Gospel from end to end as never to change one story out of its proper time and place, should do it here to serve Mr. Hemings turne so pat.

2. Mr. Heming makes no bones of making two Evangelists to change the order of one and the same story; the like to which let him shew me againe through all the Gospels, and I will lay downe the cudgels: I say it againe, let him shew through all the Gospels such another dis­location in two Evangelists of one and the same story, as hee would make this to be in Matthew and Marke, and I will confesse mine owne ignorance, and applaud his skill. I beleeve there is but one example in all the Evangelists, that two or more of them do misplace the same story, and that is not such a dislocation as this neither, as I shall shew him the difference if he have ever the luck and skill to finde it out.

3. Sure he never observed how direct Matthew and Marke are in reckoning the dayes of Christs last weeke before the Passeover, from his riding in triumph to Ierusalem till the Passeover day came. As Iohn tells, that six dayes before the Passeover he supt at Bethany Iohn 12.1. So they goe on and tell that on the next day or five dayes before the Passe­over he rideth in Triumph into Ierusalem, Mat. 21.1, 2, &c. Marke 11.1, 2. and at Even goeth to Bethany, Matth. 21.17. Marke 11.11.

On the morrow, which was four dayes before the Passeover hee goes againe from Bethany into Ierusalem, Mar. 11.11, 15, &c. and at night goeth the same way againe, Mar. 11.19.

In the morning, which was three dayes before the Passeover, he goes againe into Ierusalem, Marke 11.20, 27, &c. and at Even departs into the Mount of Olives, Marke 24.1, 3. Marke 13.1, 3. Luke 21.37.

And thus are we come to the night that we are upon, namely two nights before the Passeover, where did Christ lodge this night? why, the Evangelists tell you in the Mount of Olives: where, there? why, Matthew and Marke say, After two dayes was the Passeover, and the Scribes sought to take him, &c. And he being at Bethany at meat, &c.

Why should not any rationall man rather take the method of both the Evangelists here to be direct, since it is so direct all along hitherto, then to make a jumpe backe again, no man alive can imagine to what purpose but onely to serve Mr. Hemings turne? It is apparent that Christ lodged two nights before the Passeover in the Mount of Olives.

I suppose Mr. H. will not say he lay all night in the open fields, and I presume he cannot tell where else to lodge him in the Mount of Olives, but at Bethany; and the Evangelists say, after two dayes was the Passeover, &c. And Iesus being at meat in Bethany, &c. And yet Mr. H. will not suffer you to think that Christ supped this night at Bethany, but that the two Evangelists speake of six nights before the Passeover. How senslesse is it to thinke, that when they have told you directly what Christ did the fifth, fourth, third day before the Passeover, and when they say moreover it was two dayes before the Passeover, they then should jump back againe to six dayes before, and no man can imagine for what?

4. It is presumption to displace the Evangelists method without good and sound reason given for it: Let Mr. H. give but such a one and I shall be silent.

As grosse or more grosse (put what substantive to it you thinke good) is his second asseveration, if he could perswade you to it, and that is, that that supper at Bethany Iohn 12, and that supper at Bethany Mat. 26. Mark. 14. were but one and the same, and at the same time: which you must beleeve upon the word of this great Oracle though there be these maine and visible differences between them.

1 That Supper in Iohn 12. was sixe dayes before the Passeover.

That Supper in Mat. 26. Marke 14. was but two: if you will beleeve the Evangelists as they speake, and not make them speake as Mr. H. would have them.

2. The Supper in Iohn 12. was in the house of Lazarus.

The Supper in Matth. 26. Marke 14. was in the house of Simon the Leper.

3. At the Supper in Iohn 12. Mary a woman named, anointeth Christs feet.

At the Supper Mat. 26. Marke 14. a woman not named anoints his head.

4. At the Supper in Iohn 12. Iudas alone hath indignation at the ex­pence of the ointment. vers. 4.

At the Supper in Mat. 26. Marke 14. the Disciples had indignation at it, Mat. 26.8.

Now all these differences which to such a dull pate as mine, cannot choose but make these appear different suppers; Mr. Heming can re­concile as fast as a Henne can cracke nuts: For doe but heare him cracke.

Pag. 1 And lastly (saith he) though much more shall be added if there be occasion, If any man of common capacity will but compare Iohn 12. from vers. 1. to 8. with Matth. 26.6. to vers. 13. and Marke 14.3—9. he shall finde they all speake of the same Supper at Bethany. And for what Iohn differs from the other two Evan­gelists in naming Martha and Lazarus and in saying she anointed his feet, where­as the others say she poured it on his head: that shall be easily reconciled when­soever Mr. Lightfoot please.

It seemes Mr. Heming hath a singular faculty of reconciling dead men, and I wish he have not a better, in setting living men together by the eares. I would he would let the Evangelists alone who are at a sacred peace among themselves, and that he would reconcile poor Ʋt­toxeter which is torne in peeces with dissentions since he came amongst us. I know not whether Tenterton Steeple was the cause of the stop­ping up of the Haven two or three miles off it: this I know, that till [Page 28] Ʋttoxeter knew Mr. Heming peace, amity, and charity dwelt amongst us, in few Towns more, but now nothing but diss [...]ntion, biting, and back­biting, in no town the like. If you be so good a reconciler, I pray begin at home; the Evangelists need none of your daiesmanship.

You would thinke it were silke or satten that this great reconciler makes all this ruffle in, when it is but poore buckram ignorance of the style of the Gospels, that I may name nothing else. His skill in the Gospels is so great, that if any two passages in them do but looke one like another, they must of necessity be one and the same, and hee can finde one trick or other in his budget to make them so. I war­rant you he would make a gallant stitching together of these diffe­rences if I were pleased to desire it of him: Hee can tell you as direct­ly how the house of Lazarus became the house of Simon the Leper, as if hee had drawne the conveyance; and how anointing of Christs head came to bee anointing of his feet, as ever men brought head and heeles together. This sure he learned from the wandering Jew too.

His Squib is not out yet, but it cracks thus further,

Mr. H. I conclude against all he hath said or can say, yea against whatsoever all the friends hee shall make in this controversie can say for him.

  • 1. That there was no sop given in the Supper at Bethany, let him finde it me in Mat. 26. Marke 14. Iohn 12.
  • 2. That the discourse between Christ and his Disciples about the Traitor pas­sed that very night he are the Passeover at Ierusalem, Mat. 26.19, 20, 21, 22, —26. Marke 14.16.—22. and not at Bethany two dayes before. For had Iudas been discovered at Bethany, how could the Disciples (John as well as the rest) begin to be sorrowfull ( wondring to heare Christ say one of you shall betray me, Iohn 13.21, 22.) and inquire who it was, saying, Is it I, Is it I, two dayes after? Mat. 26.22. Marke 14.19. Luke 22.23.
  • 3. That Christ washed not his Disciples feet at Bethany, but at the Supper at Ierusalem, the same night he was betrayed, Iohn 13.
  • 4. That the sop was given at an ordinary or common supper, which Christ had the same night before he ate the Passeover, &c.

Reply. I conclude against all he hath said or can say, yea against all the friends he can make in this controversie can say.

That very word would make one start; What luck had I, that I was not acquainted with Don Quixot? he were the onely fellow i'th world, to take up this challenge, for he was old dog at fighting with Windmils; and I know no friend I have that hath any heart upon [Page 29]such incounters. You have heard of little Jefferey the dwarfe that challenged the great Porter to fight with him, but it must bee i'th furnace hole, or in an Ovens; you may make the applica­tion.

Let you and me alone with this businesse like a couple of wise men as we are, I have no friends that have any minde to be miscalled or to fight with shadowes.

1. You conclude that there was no sop given in the Supper at Bethany, but I conclude there was.

You derive your conclusion, from Mat. 26. Mar. 14. & Ioh. 12. and your argument lieth thus, if I can see it.

If Mat. 26. Mar. 14. & Iohn 12. that speak of the supper at Bethany, speak not of giving of the sop, then there was no sop given at the supper at Bethany. But. Ergo.

Make good the consequence, and the day is yours; but you will not make that good to day.

My conclusion I derive from Mat. 26. Mar. 14. Luk. 22. Ioh. 13. and I frame my argument thus.

The time and place whence Iudas began his treason, was the time and place of Satans entring into him with the sop; this is proved by the authority of Luk. 22.3, 4. Then entred Satan into Judas, and he went and communed with the chief Priests, &c. And of Ioh. 13.27.

But the Supper at Bethany, Mat. 26. Mar. 14. was the time and place whence Iudas began his treason; This M. H. granteth. Therefore the supper at Be­thany was the time and place where Satan entred into Judas with the sop.

2. You conclude, That the discourse between Christ and his Discipels con­cerning the traitor passed that very night that he ate the Passeover: that is most true; but whereas you conclude withall that the like discourse passed not at Bethany two dayes before, that is most false. And as for your rea­son, had Judas been discovered at Bethany, how could the Disciples, John as well as the rest, begin to be sorrowfull, &c. I will tell you how.

First, if the discovery of Iudas at Bethany was privately to Iohn only, then your question or reason is answered, & I must put you to prove the contrary.

Secondly, though John knew it before, yet he loved not his Master so little, but he would be sorrowfull too to hear of his Masters betraying again, as well as they.

Thirdly, though the discovery at Bethany were openly to all, yet [Page 30]might they two nights after begin to be sorrowfull to hear of it again [...] ▪ He hath written that word begin in a different letter, as if he would have you to observe the emphasis of that word, as if they had never been sor­rowfull about that businesse before. But though they had heard of it two dayes before, might they not begin to bee sorrowfull about it againe, when the discourse of it was renewed? The Passeover supper was a meal of rejoicing, and in the midst of that meale for Christ to speak of his be­traying, might it not dampe their rejoicing and make them begin to bee sorrowfull? And besides, I could tell of a propriety that To begin hath in the Gospel language, that if he had observed, it may be he would not have pointed out the word for so emphaticall. To begin to do a thing, in Gospel language doth often mean no more but To do a thing. They began to be sorrowfull in Mark. 14.19. is no more in Mat. 26.22. then They were sorrowfull.

Fourthly, At the Passeover supper they aske not who is it? but they every one say, Is it I? the former question had been of doubting, as Joh. 13.22. the latter of every one vindicating themselves, and asserting their integrity by that question.

Fiftly, Doth he make no difference between Johns asking Christ a­lone, and all the Disciples speaking to him? and no difference between Christs saying, He to whom I shall give a sop when I have dipped it, and He that dippeth with me in the dish?

If all the three Evangelists had spoken in Lukes language; The hand of him that betraies me is with me on the table, and not mentioned dipping in the dish; I wonder where Mr. Hemings Passeover night sop would have been found then? but when Matthew and Mark speak of dipping in the dish, here is enough for him to make quidlibet è quolibet, as he can doe it most excellently.

3. He concludes, that Christ washed not his Disciples feet at Bethany, but at the supper at Jerusalem the same night he was betrayed, Joh. 13.

This is written in a Gospel of his own making (for it is not written in Joh. 13) & so is his next conclusion, That the sop was given at an ordinary common Supper; which Christ had the same night before he ate the Passeover; Let him find fair evidence for either of these in any of the foure Evangelists that we read, and I will say I never read them. Sure this man would make an excellent new Gospel.

And now let me use his owne style, and conclude too.

I conclude against all he hath said, or can say (but beare witnesse I challenge none of his friends.)

  • 1. That the supper in Joh. 13. at which Judas received the sop, was before the Passeover festivall. ver. 1. & 29.
  • 2. That every night for five or six nights together before the Passeo­ver, Christ lodged in the mount of Olives (and if Mr. Heming can tell where, but at Bethany, let him shew it.) Mat. 21.17. Mat. 11.19. and 13.1, 2. Luk. 21.37.
  • 3. That two nights before the Passeover he supped at Bethany, Mat. 26.2, 6.
  • 4. That from that supper Iudas began his treason, Mat. 26.14.
  • 5. That hee began his treason upon Satans entring into him, Luk. 22.3, 4.
  • 6. That Satan entred into him upon his receiving of the sop, Iohn 13.27.

Ergo. 7. That Judas received the sop at Bethany, two dayes before the Passeover.

Now because Mr. Heming, according to his common charity, doth charge me for contra-conscientiously and wickedly wresting the Scrip­ture, for the maintaining of this my conclusion, I shall desire the Reader equally and impartially to judge between us, whether of us wrest these texts, that we have had to deal with about, he or I.

1. I say the supper, Ioh. 13. was before the Passeover day, because the text saith, It was before the feast of the Passeover, ver. 1. Hee saith, That sup­per, Iohn 13. was on the Passeover night, though the text doth say, It was before the feast of the Passeover; Whether of us doe more wrest this Scrip­ture?

2 I say, that when some of the Disciples thought that Iesus bade Iu­das buy something against the feast; the Disciples knew that the feast was coming, and it was not yet come: Hee saith, what the Disciples thought proceeded from their ignorance: whether of us do more wrest and wrong this text, and the Disciples?

3. I say that that supper at Bethany, Mat. 26. Mar. 14. was two dayes before the Passeover, because the Evangelists doe presently before speak of two dayes before the Passeover: He saith, that supper at Bethany, Mat. 26. Mar. 14. was six dayes before the Passeover, though the Evangelists do pre­sently before speak of two dayes before the Passeover: Whether of us doe more wrest the Scripture here?

4. I say the method and order in that place of Mat. 26. Mar. 14. is direct, and I take the stories without misplacing them; He saith, the me­thod and order there is not direct, and hee doth misplace the stories: [Page 32]Whether of us do offer the more violence to the Evangelists?

5. I say the supper in Ioh. 12. and the supper in Mat. 26. Mar. 14. were two different suppers, because one is dated six dayes before the Passe­over, and the other two; the one was in the house of Lazarus; the other in the house of Simon the leper; at the one Christs head is anointed, at the other his feet. Hee saith the supper in Iohn 12. and the supper in Mat. 26. Mar. 14. is one and the same supper, though one be dated six dayes before the Passeover, and the other two; though the one were in the house of Lazarus, and the other in the house of Simon the Leper, and though at the one Christs head were anointed, and at the other his feet. Let all the world judg whether he or I doe more wrest the Scrip­ture.

My second Assertion is this.

‘That Judas received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper.’

For the proof of which I produce Mat. 26.20. Mar. 14.17. where it is said, That Jesus sate down with the twelve; and hee taxeth Judas for treason, Mar. 14.13. Luk. 22.21.

To this Mr. Heming saith, but what he had said before.

  • 1. 'Tis true (saith he) he sate down at Jerusalem with the twelve, of whom Judas was one, in the common or ordinary supper.
  • 2. 'Tis as true that there ( as Mr. Light-foote doth most righteously affirm for the truth, to the deeper wounding of his cause) he taxed Judas for treason, gave him the sop and discovered him, and not at Bethany two dayes before.

Repl. I thank you that you wil once grant I speak truth, but you think it is for your own turne: But I pray you, how doth that that I affirm wound my cause? I say Jesus taxed Iudas of treason at the Passeover supper; and I say he taxed him of treason at the supper at Bethany, two nights before: what wound do I give to my cause by this? If you find any advantage by it, make use of it.

Wel: He granteth Iudas was at the common supper; but how missed he of the Sacrament? why Mr. H. will tell you as directly as if he had been there, that he was taxed for treason, and the sop given him & so he disco­vered and packt away before the Sacrament was in hand. And thus he makes a story of his own head of the sop given at the Passeover supper, which he will never be able to prove, while his name is Mr. H. but the story of the Evangelist that determines the case, he slippeth over and speaks not one word to it. I cite Luke 22.21. to prove Iudas present at the Sacrament, and this M. H. saw was like enough to wound his cause, [Page 33]and therefore (I shall commend his wit another time) he answers it with grave silence, not speaking one word to it.

It is apparent by Luke that Iudas was at Table after the giving of the Sacrament. Consider his words, Luk. 22. ver. 19. And he took bread and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body, &c. ver. 20. likewise the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new Testament in my blood which is shed for you. ver. 21. But behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with mee on the table. What say you to this Mr. Heming? where was Iudas now I pray you, when his hand was on the table? Give me a direct & clear answer to evidence that he was not at table at the delivering of the Sacramentall cup, and I shall say you are an oracle indeed. But let me have your answer out of the Gospel of Matthew, Mark Luk or Iohn, & not out of a Gospel of your own making: Can any thing be plainer for my assertion then this? But behold; spel me those two words, & let me see what you can make of them. I have heard him say, but it seems he had more wit then to speak it in print, that this is a [...], or that here is a dislocation of story, or a change of the right order: Now gramer­cy daring at a dead lift. This was it that I suspected, that he would make a Gospel of his own head, for what doth he other that makes the Evan­gelists speak what, and as his own list?

By taking this course to change the method and order of Scripture, when mine owne list, and when it wil serve my turn, I will prove to you any thing: That Cain killed Abel before Adam was created, that Christ was crucified after he rose again from the dead, that hee was baptized before he was born, and any thing in the world whatsoever: I would eat my opinion, and bite my tongue, before I would make the Evan­gelists my slaves to serve my opinion; Let all the world judge whether this is to be lead by the Scripture, or to lead the Scripture whither you please.

1. Let M. H. begin at the beginning of Lukes Gospel, and let him tel me how many dislocations he can find that Luke maketh of his owne story, from one end of his Gospell to another. I beleeve he will find but very few that he can say upon good ground, these passages are displaced; and [...]hat this should be one of those very few, where there is so great proba­bility of its direct order, as But Behold, he must use a great many of words to make any reasonable man beleeve it.

2. Let him consider the conditions of the word [...]; and take it in all, or any of the senses it can be taken in, and see whether it will stretch to prove a [...], or to bee divided from what went before it. [Page 34]Sometimes it makes a conclusion, as [...], Verun­tamen neque vir sine muliere, 1 Cor. 11.11. It is sometimes praeterquam, as [...], Praeterquam navis, Acts 27.22. Sometimes Praeter, as [...], Praeter Apostolos, Acts 8.1. Sometimes sed or verum, as [...], Sed vae vobis, Luke 6.14. Sometimes Tamen, as [...] Tamen hoc scitote, Luke 10.11. And sometimes Quinetiam, as [...]. Now in all these acceptations or in any of them, is it not ever made an inseparable companion, or in conjunction to some time that went immediately before? And I am confident Mr. H. would plead hard it doth so here, if it made but halfe so much to his purpose as it makes against him.

I say again, Christ delivered the Sacrament, Mat. 26.26. Mark. 14.22. Luk. 22.19. and they all drank of it, Mark. 14.23.

To this Mr. Hemings answer is this.

15 The Text doth not say he delivered it to the twelve, but to all, namely to all present, for Judas had gotten the sop and was gone forth.

Reply. Readers, The Evangelists alledged tell you, that Iesus sate down with the twelve, and they did eat, and as they were eating, he ordained the Sacrament; & not a syllable of Judas his getting the sop, or going forth, but M. H. tells you so, it's a story of his putting in amongst those Evan­gelists: now whether it be fitter to beleeve them or him, judge ye.

I would aske Mr. Heming this question: Before the Gospell of Iohn was written (as he is held to have written the last) if Mr. Heming had read any of, or all the three other relating the story of the Passeover, how would he have construed them then? where would his sop, and Iudas going forth have been found then? Does not he think that all that read them then, understood them as I doe, and never dreamed of Iudas recei­ving the sop and going out? and yet they thought that they had the full story of the Passeover supper too. I dare allow Mr. Heming 7 yeares study to prove that Iohn speaks one syllable, of story of the Passoever sup­per: But because he hath spoken of a supper and a sop, and Iudas go­ing forth, &c. therefore he will have that the Passeover supper, though the Evangelists do most plainly say it was before the Passeover-feast.

Pag. 15 He giveth a second answer as magistratical and withall as solid as this; & that is, if it had been said, he gave it to the twelve, yet that would prove nothing, for in 1 Cor. 15.5. 'tis said He (Christ) was seen of Cephas, and then of the twelve, though he was seen only of the eleven, Mat. 28.16, 17. Mar. 16.14.

Reply. Readers, I must tell you again, That whatsoever the Evangelists say, Mr. Heming must set their sense: though all the three had said, He gave [Page 35]the Sacrament to the twelve, yet you must say it was but to eleven, and though they speak not a word of Judas absence, yet Mr. Heming has told you he was gone, and that's enough for you to beleeve against 3 Evangelists. The allegation out of 1 Cor. 15.5. is profoundly applyed: Paul saies Christ was seen of the twelve, & yet you are to understand it but of Eleven: true: for the story had abundantly and abundantly again told before what was become of the twelfth; and how they were become but eleven, and the Corinthians knew the story well enough: But here though the Evangelists had said, He gave it to the twelve, Mr. Heming will have you to understand it only of eleven, though none of the three speake a word before of the abating of the number, or what was become of the twelfth.

Pag. In the Objection he frameth and answereth, If Mr. Lightfoote shall be so vain as to say Matthias was then chosen in the roome of Judas, &c. He doth but fight with his own shadow, and I will let them alone to deal it out, fight man, fight shadow, and part your selves when you thinke good.

Ib Mr. Heming Whereas he affirmeth that Christ gave the Sacrament to Judas, I seare he doth him more injury then ever he will be able to count for, at his tribunall.

Reply. Let Mr. Heming feare to make that so hainous a sinne, which hee hath no warrant to prove but his owne fancy, that it is any finne at all.

I shall propose to him these two or three Questions.

1. Is it any injury to Christ to say that he gave Judas the Word, as well as to the other Apostles, that is, made him a Minister of it as well as they? or to say that Christ gave him the Spirit, that is, the power of miracles and gifts of healing as well as to them? I beleeve M. H. will hardly deny that he gave him the Word and Spirit in this sense, I pray you then, Why is it so great an injury to Christ, to say, Hee gave the Sacrament to Judas, more then to say, Hee gave the Word and Spirit to Judas? I would gladly see wherein the difference lies; that to say, the one should bee no sinne, and to say the other should bee so hainous: shew mee some reason why it should bee a higher businesse for Christ to give the Sacrament to Judas, then to make him a Minister of the word and Sacrament?

2. Did not Iudas eat the Passeover with Christ? if not at this last supper, yet at some other time? I presume M. H. will not deny it; why then tell mee, Why it should not be injury to Christ to say this as well [Page 36]as the other? Was not the Passeover a Sacrament, as well as the Lords Supper? Was not the Paschall Lambe the body of Christ in the same sense, that the bread in the Sacrament was? Shew me wherein lies the vast difference; that to say, That Iudas received the one Sacrament with Christ, is an innocent truth, and to say, That Iudas received the other Sacrament from Christ, is damnable impiety? M. H. in p. 20. can and doth grant, that Judas received both Passeover and Sacrament; doth hee injury to Christ in this concession, or no?

15 Mr. Heming. Did he not usually except Judas? Have not I chosen twelve, and one of you is a Devill? John 6.70. Yee are chane, but not all, Joh. 13.10, 11. And againe, ver. 18. I speak not of you all, I know whom I have chosen, &c.

Reply. No, he did not usually except Iudas; in a few places indeed he doth it, but usually he doth it not. Let that bee proved; you shall see more places then these by and by where hee doth not.

id. Mr. Heming. But to those be gave the Sacrament, bee saith without excep­tion.

1. This is my body which is given for you. This is the cup of the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you, Luke 22.19, 20. Surely Christ could not safely say so to Judas, whom bee knew to bee a Devill eternally [...]st.

Reply. I, but Christ might safely say so to the whole society, though In­das was there. As what say you to these speeches?

Mat. 10.20. It is the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you: Judas was in the company of them to whom this was spoken, ver. 4. yet was not God his father.

Mat. 10.46. Hee stretched forth his hand toward his Disciples and said, Behold my Mother and my Brethren: Where was Indas thinke you now?

Mat. 13.16. Blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your eares, for they heare: Was Judas under this blessing, or was hee absent at this time too?

Mat. 23. [...]. All ye are brethren. ver. 9. One is your father which is in heaven: Had Judas the luck to be absent now also?

Luke 12.4. I say unto you my friends, ver. 32. Little flock, it is your Fathers good pleasure to give you the Kingdome: Ho Indas where art thou now?

Mat. 5.13. Ye are the salt of the earth. Ye are the light of the world.

Mat. 5.48. Your Father which is in heaven. ch. 6.1.14. your heavenly Fa­ther. ver. 15. Your Father. ver. 32. Your heavenly Father, &c.

In these & very many such speeches which were generally spoken to the whole Company of the Disciples, Mr. Hemings logick wil make this con­struction, that either Judas was not there (sure it was his luck alway to be with his bag at the market) or Christ did not safely speak those words: No doubt he would make an exceeding brave comment upon such pla­ces as these, if he were put to it.

Pag. 15 Mr. Heming. I will not drinke henceforth of the fruit, untill that day I drinke it new with you in my Fathers Kingdom, Mat. 26.29. Had Christ meant Judas as well as the rest (as he must, had he been there, since he excepts him not) he had been foully mistaken, for he was never like to come there, understand the Fathers Kingdome how ye will.

Reply. Here Mr. Heming very gravely will teach Christ how to speak, and if he speakes not as his minde is, he will tell hin he is foully mis­taken. It was our Saviours common way of oratory, to frame his words in his instructions, admonitions, exhortations, &c. as speaking to all present: when the proper application of what was spoken did did not suite with every one that heard it, but only with such as stood in capacity of such a thing, as Mat. 23.1, 8, 9▪ He saith to all the multi­tude present, All yee are brethren: and one is your Father in Heaven: and yet every singular person in that multitude cannot be thought capable of the proper sense of these words.

But M. H. saith, in this speech in hand Christ must meane Iudas if he were present; though he used not such strictnesse in other speeches, yet here he must doe it, or Mr. Heming will tell him his owne.

Pag. 16 Mr: Heming. Luke 22.28, 29, 30. Yee are they which have continued with me in my temptations, and I appoint to you a Kingdome, as my Father hath appointed to mee: That yee may eat and drinke at my Table in my Kingdome, and sit on twelve Thrones judging the twelve Tribes of Isra­el. But

  • 1. Iudas had not continued with him in his temptations; Neither
  • 2. Could Christ appoint to him any other kingdom but that of wrath and dark­nesse; Nor
  • 3. Was he ever like to sit at Christs Table in his Kingdome: much lesse sit on a Throne in judgment of the twelve Tribes, who is himselfe to bee judged as a Devill.

Reply. 1 These very words are spoken by Christ in Mat. 19.28. be­fore ever sop or Satan came into Iudas: Mr. Heming must prove that Iudas was absent then also, or else this his argument is not worth a straw.

2. Observe what a proper exposition he makes: You eleven shall on twelve Thrones: an acute Glosse I promise you. Eleven men la­in twelve beds.

Pag. 16 Mr. Heming. Mat. 26.31. All ye shall be offended because of me this night: This is the same All to whom the Sacrament was delivered: Let Mr. Lightfoot take heed how he traduce Christ himselfe by affirming that Judas was one of the All, he administred the Seale and spake these words to. And let him not thinke to evade any of these Scriptures by saying Judas had received the Sacrament and was gone forth, unlesse he be able to prove it.

Reply. Truly that is no hard task to do, to prove that Iudas having received the Sacrament was gone forth, for all that had received the Sacrament were gone forth: what can be plainer then the Text is for this, Mat. 26.30, 31. And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the Mount of Olives. Then saith Iesus unto them, All yee shall be offended &c. And so Marke 14.26, 27. Mr. Heming winked at this Text and would not see what he might have done, and would not have others to see what is to be seen in it: but would perswade you these words were spoken by Christ while he was stil in the house, and at the Table, the better to delude you with his argument: But the Evangelists tell you plainely that they were all gone forth, Christ, Disciples and all: and then was Iudas gone about his villany, to get together his men to surprise his Master.

It is apparent in Luk. 22 that Iudas was as Table after the delivering of the cup; let Mr. Heming cleare it that he did not receive the bread and the cup; and let him shew that Iudas did not stay the singing of the Psalme, as nice as he and his precious hearts make it to sing Psalmes in the Congregation, because they will not sing with the prophane; with all the skill all of them have, they will not evade it, but that Christ and the Disciples sung the hymne while Iudas was with them. I say therefore according to the plaine Text of the Evangelists, that Iudas received the sop and Satan with it before the Feast day of the Passeover came: that before that day came he had contrived with the chiefe Priests for his Masters betraying; that on the Passeover night he was one of the twelve that sate downe to supper; that he was there at the common supper, as Mr. H. calls it, that he was there at the Pas­chall Lamb eating, at the Sacrament delivering, at the singing of the hymne, and till all the Table rose and went out; and then he slipt aside, and gathered his cut-throats for the apprehending of his Master.

If I have not shewed this clearer from the Text, and more free with­ [...]ut wresting of the Text, then Mr. H. shewes the contrary, let me in the eyes of all judicious and impartiall men, beare the brand of so silly a foole as he would stamp upon me.

Pag. 1 And whereas he would affright me, with, Let Mr. Lightfoot take heed how he traduce Christ himselfe, by affirming Iudas was one of that All he ad­ministred the seale and spake these words to.

1. He might have done well to have given the Evangelists this cau­tion, for I speake but what they tell me. One of them tells me that when Christ gave the cup, Iudas was at Table; and another tells that he bad them drinke all of it, and what can I say lesse then I do? If I have forged one tittle of mine owne head, let me heare of it.

And 2. I pray you what injury is it to Christ to say he administred the seale to Judas? shew me a reason why the seale might not be ad­ministred to him: I say it might; I say it may to a person that is not a Saint: Cry not out here, Heare Oh heavens &c. but shew me a solid reason why it might not. I say again, It is no more traducing of Christ to say he administred the seal to Iudas, then it is traducing of Christ to say he administred the Word to Iudas. And if Mr. Heming can prove the Sacrament to be greater then the Word, he may then say something against this my assertion; but till he can do that, he must give me leave to hold what I doe.

And here hath Mr. Heming spent all his shot he had to spend about the controversie between us, namely concerning the time of Iudas re­ceiving the sop, and concerning his receiving of the Sacrament. All the rest of his booke, he shoots powder and he cares not how: one while he talkes of the communion of Saints, another while of gathering of Churches, then of liberty of conscience, &c. which as they are besides our question, so shal not I trouble my self with them.

But before we part, let me againe thanke him for that favourable and Christian like conclusion that he makes with me, as he made it his beginning, when he faith thus, I should abundantly wrong him if I should not ranke him among the vilest in the Kingdome: for with them hee will have communion, as a member of the same externall visible body, by vertue whereof they are all his brethren and sisters, so that he hath his brother drunkard, brother theif, brother murderer, brother liar &c. sister whore, sister witch, &c. yea all that have been hanged at Tyburne and all other gallowes in England ever since he was borne and baptized into that fellowship he pleads for, have been his brethren and sisters, let him or any one else upon good ground deny it if he can.

Reply. Here is excellent language I promise you and full of Chri­stian meeknesse and charity, I could not but repeat it againe. This Gentleman calls God to record upon his soul, that he hath spoken nothing in bitternesse and passion, pag. 7. and if this be his calme lan­guage, what do you thinke he speaks when he speaks in thunder? sure his women Saints dictated this language to him, for this is plain scol­ding and not arguing. Whatsoever he disclaimeth of bitteresse and passion, looke his whole discourse through and see what it breatheth of thorough out?

He begins it with the Title, Precious Hearts: A pretious tongue would have done well in the bargaine too. But you see how impati­ent the man is to be crost: whosoever cannot hold, and speake, and practice pointblank according to his humour, must be ranked with all the whores, theeves, witches, murderers, and Tyburnians in England.

If you be so free from bitternesse and passion, take heed I pray you M. H. of pride, blinde-zeale, and selfe-prizing. You must needs thinke (if these blind you not) that others have studied the Scriptures as well as your selfe, and understand reason, and know the concernment of their soules, and would gladly be saved as well as you: and that hold their Tenents in Religion from a good conscience, and would be as loth to deceive themselves in things of such weight as well as your selfe: what reason or warrant have you to thinke that no man thinkes right but he that thinkes as you doe; and none practiseth right but according as you practise? and that none can walke to hea­ven but just in your steps? and when a man from the bottom of his soul thinks that Iudas received the Sacrament, and holds, that it is better to receive the Sacrament with the Congregation, though profane persons be there, then either to refraine from the Sacrament, or separate from the Congregation, what reason or warrant have you in the world thus to vilifie him, and to ranke him with so vile persons? I cannot hold The communion of Saints to meane in your sense, I cannot think the Sacrament was ordained onely for visible and reall Saints, I cannot hold that it is to distinguish betwixt Christian and Christian, I cannot either relinquish the Sacrament or the Congregation, must I therefore be matcht with all the theeves, whores, witches, and villaines of the gallowes? If this be meeknesse, charity, and christianity, it is so by some new-found or new-made bible, for in that that I have alway stu­died, this is held to be pride, rashnesse, passion, and uncharitablenesse. [Page 41] [...]e man hath fancied a communion of Saints, and a reservednesse of the Sacrament, which he will never be able to prove, and because I and others cannot be of the same groundlesse judgment, this is the chari­table mans doom upon me.

Doubtlesse he would make a brave Judge, but let not me nor any friend of mine come under his fingers: No more adoe with him but sirrah, do you thinke Iudas received the Sacrament? and do you think mixt communion is lawfull? yes and't please you. Then take him Jailor, for this is a companion, nay a brother of all the rogues and theeves that ever were hanged at Tyburne &c. A smart Judge I promise you; blesse you out of his clutches.

I may not forget neither before we part to thanke him for his good word in pag. 11. where hee saith Mr. Lightfoot hath gone a­gainst manifest light of truth, the whole current or streame of Orthodox, godly and learned Expositors, common sense &c. And to serve a Malignant designe, hee wickedly and 'tis to be feared contraconscientiously wrests and wrings in John 13. &c.

Reply. Here is charity by lumps: I wonder in what schoole he lear­ned it.

1. I pray you what malignity is it to beleeve and to maintain that Judas received the Sacrament? Yes, there is this malignity in it, Yee crosse the imperiall minde and opinion of Mr. Heming; for else there is nothing in it contrary either to Scripture, Piety, Charity, Peace, Ho­nesty or good manners.

2 I would faine know how this opinion is contrary to common sense: I would go a mile to heare him shew this: He saith in pag. 1. Many weake-ones have stumbled at what Mr. Lightfoot hath spoken and writ­ten, though there be neither Divinity nor Reason in it. Excellent wel groun­ded Disciples I assure you that stumble when there is neither stone nor straw in the way: He doth them but little credit in telling they are so easily shaken by that is neither Divinity nor sense: Hee should shew how it wanteth or contrarieth common sense. Come let's heare it.

3 It were worth hearing, whom he ownes for Orthodox Exposi­tors: Beza, Calvin, Pareuc, Fulke, &c? why, these were of the old light, I hope you scorne to call these men Orthodox: No sayes he but I do not, I will call any man Orthodox as far as I thinke they will serve my turne: but if I finde them different in the least tittle from mine o­pinion, I shall tell them what they are.

4. Doth Mr. Lightfoots opinion go against the whole current [...] ­Orthodox, godly, and learned Expositors? Zanchy saith, Multi & magni viri, have taught and written agreeable to mine opinion. And if Mr. Gillespy were alive (whom you have so unworthily used as to steale his arguments by whole-steale and never to owne him) he could name you a man of my opinion, whom he would confesse a man Or­thodox, godly, and learned, and even a walking Library of Ortho­dox, godly, and learned Expositors, and that is Mr. Prynne, A gen­tleman of that learning that you would have but little pleasure to combat with in this controversie. If you were as well versed in what hee hath written about this subject, as you are in Mr. Gillespy, you would finde, that you either wilfully speake you care not what, or sillily speak you know not what, when you say mine opinion is con­trary to the whole current of Orthodox, godly, and learned Exposi­tors.

5 Whether I have gone against the manifest light of truth, and whether I have wrested the Scriptures, I appeale from your cen­sure (for I am sure you will be partiall in your own case) to the im­partiall Judge of your heart and mine; and to the impartiall Reader who hath seen what hath past between us.

6 And as for that unchristian and injurious censure, That I had a Malignant designe, and that I have wickedly and contraconsci­entiously wrested the Scriptures: I will say no more to it, but I pray God give you a better tongue and heart: And I will leave you that Text in Rom. 2.1. to study on, as far as passion and self-conceit will give you leave.

And now let us shake hands and part: I thanke you for your kindnesse and good words, as much as it comes to. I wish you more charity, humility, wisdome, and moderation: I would advise you to study more and Print lesse; your stocke is not so great as to be trusting too much abroad: You see what paines I have been at with you, I hope I shall have thankes from you for it.

A wispe or a Cuck-stoole the reward of Scolds had beene a fitter returne for your railing, then patience and reason, but you see how I have waited on you with Salt and Spoones: I hope you will excuse mee, if I finde my selfe something to doe ano­ther time: for this I will promise you and here is my hand on't; That raile, rage, rave, call, miscall, print sense or non-sense, vent [Page 43]our owne Arguments, or Arguments that you have stolne, vapour in what subject or after what manner you will, I am resolved to an­swer you with deep silence, and with Hezekiahs lesson, answer him not. You love not to appeare in publick so much, but I love it as little: You have forced me to this trouble, and to be thus troublesome to the Reader; say what you will, you shall bring me upon the stage in this manner no more.

FJNJS.

ERRATA.

IN the Epist: p: 1: l. 6: for fulnesse of his stomach, r; foulnesse of, &c. p: 3: l: 6: for k [...]ew me not, r: know me not, p: 4: l: 4: for 44: r: 442▪ l: 8: r: fie upon it, p: 5: l: 14: r: vi­per-proofe for vipers proofe, p: 6: l: 7: r: Therefore it doth fret me as little, l: 6: r: Mat: 5:22 PAg: 2: l: 34: for the best upon which, r: the bent upon which, p: 3. l: 8: for clearest hu­mour, r: dearest humour, p: 4. last line but two, for visible works, r: visible markes, p: 6: for Affirm, r: Affirmo, & l: 4: for Nega r: Nego, p: 7: l: 10: for selfe-united r: self-min­ted: p: 11: l: 7: for but cryed out, r: but she cryed out, p: 15: l: 3: for Is it r: It is: p: 16: l: 11: for He is it, r: He is, l: 26: for diet being the dayes of the feast, r: diet along the dayes, p: 21: l: 21: for how much abuse, r: how much I abuse, p: 31: l: 20: for to deal with about, r: to deal with about it, p: 34: l: 8: for some time r: something.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.